AI is the simulation of human intelligence processes by machines, especially computer systems. Specific applications of AI include machine learning, deep learning, natural language processing, and speech and image recognition…
There are many definitions of Artificial intelligence (“AI”). Stated simply, AI is the simulation of human intelligence processes by machines, especially computer systems. Specific applications of AI include machine learning, deep learning, natural language processing, and speech and image recognition. In general, AI systems work by inputting large amounts of data, analyzing the data for correlations and patterns, and using these patterns to make predictions about future states. AI programming focuses on three cognitive skills: learning, reasoning and self-correction.
Discussion
In July 2019, Stephen Thaler sought to obtain patents for two inventions, one for a “Neural Frame,” and another for a “Fractal Container.” Thaler told the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office that these inventions were conceived not by him, but entirely by his “DABUS” AI device.[1] The USPTO turned Thaler down on the basis that the inventor’s oaths submitted to the USPTO were submitted by Thaler on behalf of DABUS, and that a “machine does not qualify as an inventor.” In response, Thaler sought judicial review of the USPTO’s decision in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. The District Court affirmed the USPTO decision, holding that an “inventor” under the Patent Act must be an “individual.” Thaler appealed this ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which affirmed the decisions below, holding that under the U.S. Patent Act an inventor must be “a human being” not a computer. Thaler v. Vidal, Case No. 21-2347 (Fed. Cir. August 5, 2022)(“Thaler”).
The Federal Circuit’s decision began and ended, more or less, with an interpretation of the plain text of the Patent Act. The Court did not delve into the specifics of the DABUS invention, nor did the Court rely heavily on the tools of statutory construction, stating that the language of the Act was clear and unambiguous.
The issue on appeal was whether the provisions of the Patent Act supported Thaler’s assertion that DABUS was a proper inventor within the meaning of the Act. Looking to the language of specific provisions of the Patent Act pertaining to definitions, oaths, formalities, joint inventorship, prior art and infringement, the Court determined that the term “inventor(s)” means “individual(s).” However, the term “individual(s)” is not defined in the Act. As a result, the Court looked to the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Mohamad v. Palestinian Authority, 566 U.S. 449 (2012), which construed the term “individual” under the Torture Victim Protection Act of 1991, and held that “when used as a noun, ‘individual’ ordinarily means a human being, a person,” or a “natural person.” The Federal Circuit also found that this construction of “individual” comports with its definition in the Oxford English Dictionary (2022).
Conclusion
The Federal Circuit explained that it was not deciding whether “an AI system can form beliefs.” Further, the Court indicated that it was not “confronted . . . with the question of whether inventions made by human beings with the assistance of AI are eligible for patent protection.” But, they are most likely are. Finally, the Court noted that South Africa has granted patents with DABUS as an inventor, but stated “[t]his foreign patent office was not interpreting our Patent Act.”
If you have questions, please contact us
If you have any questions or if you would like to discuss the matter further, please contact me, Joseph Manak, or the Scarinci Hollenbeck attorney with whom you work, at 201-896-4100.
[1] DABUS stands for Device for the Autonomous Bootstrapping of Unified Science.
Does Your Homeowners Insurance Provide Adequate Coverage?
Your home is likely your greatest asset, which is why it is so important to adequately protect it. Homeowners insurance protects you from the financial costs of unforeseen losses, such as theft, fire, and natural disasters, by helping you rebuild and replace possessions that were lost While the definition of “adequate” coverage depends upon a […]
Understanding the Importance of a Non-Contingent Offer
Making a non-contingent offer can dramatically increase your chances of securing a real estate transaction, particularly in competitive markets like New York City. However, buyers should understand that waiving contingencies, including those related to financing, or appraisals, also comes with significant risks. Determining your best strategy requires careful analysis of the property, the market, and […]
Fred D. Zemel Appointed Chair of Strategic Planning at Scarinci & Hollenbeck, LLC
Business Transactional Attorney Zemel to Spearhead Strategic Initiatives for Continued Growth and Innovation Little Falls, NJ – February 21, 2025 – Scarinci & Hollenbeck, LLC is pleased to announce that Partner Fred D. Zemel has been named Chair of the firm’s Strategic Planning Committee. In this role, Mr. Zemel will lead the committee in identifying, […]
Novation Agreement Process: Step-by-Step Guide for Businesses
Big changes sometimes occur during the life cycle of a contract. Cancelling a contract outright can be bad for your reputation and your bottom line. Businesses need to know how to best address a change in circumstances, while also protecting their legal rights. One option is to transfer the “benefits and the burdens” of a […]
What Is a Trade Secret? Key Elements and Legal Protections Explained
What is a trade secret and why you you protect them? Technology has made trade secret theft even easier and more prevalent. In fact, businesses lose billions of dollars every year due to trade secret theft committed by employees, competitors, and even foreign governments. But what is a trade secret? And how do you protect […]
What Is Title Insurance? Safeguarding Against Title Defects
If you are considering the purchase of a property, you may wonder — what is title insurance, do I need it, and why do I need it? Even seasoned property owners may question if the added expense and extra paperwork is really necessary, especially considering that people and entities insured by title insurance make fewer […]
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.
Sign up to get the latest from our attorneys!
Explore What Matters Most to You.
Consider subscribing to our Firm Insights mailing list by clicking the button below so you can keep up to date with the firm`s latest articles covering various legal topics.
Stay informed and inspired with the latest updates, insights, and events from Scarinci Hollenbeck. Our resource library provides valuable content across a range of categories to keep you connected and ahead of the curve.
Artificial Intelligence & the U.S. Patent Act
Author: Joseph M. Manak
AI is the simulation of human intelligence processes by machines, especially computer systems. Specific applications of AI include machine learning, deep learning, natural language processing, and speech and image recognition…
There are many definitions of Artificial intelligence (“AI”). Stated simply, AI is the simulation of human intelligence processes by machines, especially computer systems. Specific applications of AI include machine learning, deep learning, natural language processing, and speech and image recognition. In general, AI systems work by inputting large amounts of data, analyzing the data for correlations and patterns, and using these patterns to make predictions about future states. AI programming focuses on three cognitive skills: learning, reasoning and self-correction.
Discussion
In July 2019, Stephen Thaler sought to obtain patents for two inventions, one for a “Neural Frame,” and another for a “Fractal Container.” Thaler told the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office that these inventions were conceived not by him, but entirely by his “DABUS” AI device.[1] The USPTO turned Thaler down on the basis that the inventor’s oaths submitted to the USPTO were submitted by Thaler on behalf of DABUS, and that a “machine does not qualify as an inventor.” In response, Thaler sought judicial review of the USPTO’s decision in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. The District Court affirmed the USPTO decision, holding that an “inventor” under the Patent Act must be an “individual.” Thaler appealed this ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which affirmed the decisions below, holding that under the U.S. Patent Act an inventor must be “a human being” not a computer. Thaler v. Vidal, Case No. 21-2347 (Fed. Cir. August 5, 2022)(“Thaler”).
The Federal Circuit’s decision began and ended, more or less, with an interpretation of the plain text of the Patent Act. The Court did not delve into the specifics of the DABUS invention, nor did the Court rely heavily on the tools of statutory construction, stating that the language of the Act was clear and unambiguous.
The issue on appeal was whether the provisions of the Patent Act supported Thaler’s assertion that DABUS was a proper inventor within the meaning of the Act. Looking to the language of specific provisions of the Patent Act pertaining to definitions, oaths, formalities, joint inventorship, prior art and infringement, the Court determined that the term “inventor(s)” means “individual(s).” However, the term “individual(s)” is not defined in the Act. As a result, the Court looked to the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Mohamad v. Palestinian Authority, 566 U.S. 449 (2012), which construed the term “individual” under the Torture Victim Protection Act of 1991, and held that “when used as a noun, ‘individual’ ordinarily means a human being, a person,” or a “natural person.” The Federal Circuit also found that this construction of “individual” comports with its definition in the Oxford English Dictionary (2022).
Conclusion
The Federal Circuit explained that it was not deciding whether “an AI system can form beliefs.” Further, the Court indicated that it was not “confronted . . . with the question of whether inventions made by human beings with the assistance of AI are eligible for patent protection.” But, they are most likely are. Finally, the Court noted that South Africa has granted patents with DABUS as an inventor, but stated “[t]his foreign patent office was not interpreting our Patent Act.”
If you have questions, please contact us
If you have any questions or if you would like to discuss the matter further, please contact me, Joseph Manak, or the Scarinci Hollenbeck attorney with whom you work, at 201-896-4100.
[1] DABUS stands for Device for the Autonomous Bootstrapping of Unified Science.
Let`s get in touch!
Sign up to get the latest from the Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC attorneys!
